CAN I thank The National for the article by Michael Fry clarifying the role of Henry Dundas in delaying the abolition of slavery in the UK and therefore, Scotland (Here’s the real truth on Henry Dundas and whether he ‘prolonged’ slavery, June 16).

Fry’s notion that Dundas’s influence in delaying the end of slavery was somehow justified on economic grounds is at once heartless and shocking, but at least Fry had some kind of logic in his reasoning and gives evidence of Dundas’s other work in ending other forms of serfdom.

Compare that to the car-crash interview given by Neil Oliver to The Nine on BBC Scotland, where he almost summarily dismissed the idea of reviewing the place of those who were involved or connected to the slave trade in history, because concepts like racism – and presumably in his mind, the concept of the inhumanity involved in enslaving black people – didn’t exist in the same form in those days.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: Here’s the real truth on Henry Dundas and whether he ‘prolonged’ slavery

It begs the question whether Oliver feels people like Neville Chamberlain should be given a statue for his work on appeasement, since it was an accepted political attitude of the day?

Oliver also seemed to suggest that any condemnation of the historical place of slavery should be sidelined because slavery still exists in different forms in modern times. Should the place of the historical attitudes to anti-semitism now be reviewed, since clearly anti-semitism still exists across the world?

In conclusion, regardless of Michael Fry’s strange dismissal of Dundas’s role in ending slavery, The National deserves praise for providing a proper and thought-provoking article for the public to consider, in direct contrast to the bizarre semi-coherent ramblings of an archaeologist discussing social history that was on offer from BBC Scotland.

W Spalding
via email

IN his article about Henry Dundas, Michael Fry mentioned that he was instrumental in freeing Scottish miners from slavery in 1799 (not 1800). I can assure you it was not because of humanitarian principles but pure economics.

As the Scottish miners were bonded they were outwith the Combination Laws, which meant the colliers could and did organise themselves to better their conditions. Once free, the Combination Laws would be appplied. The miners knew this and actively opposed the proposal to free them. It was the coal owners who wanted the colliers free.

So to say it was for humanitarian reasons that Dundas was involved in freeing the miners is wrong. I have written a paper on the subject and would be more than happy to send The National a copy. It’s a very important part of Scottish history that is often either overlooked or misunderstood.

Iain Chalmers
via email

I WAS shocked at the disrespectful way in which Michael Fry referred to Professor Palmer as “former professor of brewing”. The title under which I have seen him mentioned is Professor Emeritus in the School of Life Sciences at Heriot-Watt University. Was that too much to mention in Fry’s expansive column?

I felt that Fry undermined any credibility in his ability to weigh up evidence about Henry Dundas by this reference. At present, more than ever, let us honour Black people’s achievements without attempting snide comments like this.

Cathie Lloyd
Edinburgh

BUILDING on the very recent issues raised by historical links to the abhorrent slavery practice, there is another significant stain that is attached to Scotland: The Balfour Declaration of 1917, authored by Lord Arthur Balfour whilst he was UK Foreign Secretary.

Balfour was also a previous UK Prime Minister, Scottish and a native of East Lothian, where the family had a significant estate.

The result of Balfour’s botched and ill-prepared plan for the Middle East is only surpassed by Churchill’s collaboration with the CIA in the Iran revolution of 1953 – the 28 Morad coup d’ètat.

How significant that the two most irresponsible acts of political interference in the Middle East, resulting in generations of death, destruction, war and intolerance, were both authored by former Tory Prime Ministers.

The Palestinian/Israeli tragedy can unquestionably be traced right back to Balfour’s Declaration.

Is it time to publicly state that the UK got it so very badly wrong?

The same applies to the wrongful overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, simply because it did not suit British or American interests to actually pay the Iranians the going rate for the oil that was taken from them. Unfortunately, this has a very familiar sound to it ... Scottish oil???

UK politics always has very dirty hands ... Act of Union etc etc. Hopefully change is coming.

Dougie Gray
via email